Tvl Krv Super Market vs. The Government Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.KRV Super Market, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (4th respondent) and Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023. The petitioner sought to quash these for the financial year 2017-18 and consequential demand under Section 73 of the TNGST and CGST Act, 2017. During the hearing, the petitioner withdrew the challenge to the notification. The petitioner contended that notices preceding the impugned order were hosted on the GST Common Portal, of which they were unaware as a proprietary concern. They requested an opportunity to explain discrepancies between turnover in Form GSTR 2A and declared taxable turnover in Form GSTR 3B, citing that some GSTR 2A entries related to asset acquisition and not all entries pertained to the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that for the sales turnover of Rs.1,78,32,788/- in 2018-2019, tax was payable only on Rs.1,34,37,477/-, with the balance being non-taxable.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of by remitting the case back to the fourth respondent (Deputy State Tax Officer) to pass a fresh order. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Ledger within 30 days of receiving the order. The impugned order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. Upon compliance by the petitioner, the fourth respondent was directed to proceed with passing fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner. The Court expected the fresh orders to be passed within three months from the date of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided but focused on providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to explain the discrepancies between the turnover reported in Form GSTR 2A and the taxable turnover declared in Form GSTR 3B for the financial year 2017-18, considering their claim of unawareness of portal-hosted notices and the nature of certain GSTR 2A entries? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the impugned order as preceding notices were hosted on the GST Common Portal. They sought a single opportunity to explain discrepancies, stating that some entries in Form GSTR 2A related to acquiring items for setting up the supermarket and were not taxable turnover. They also claimed that a portion of their declared turnover was not taxable. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (Government of India, Government of Tamil Nadu, Principal Chief Commissioner of GST, and Deputy State Tax Officer) argued through the learned Additional Government Pleader that the writ petition was without merit and should be dismissed because the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 168A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has not only challenged the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the fourth respondent but has also questioned Notification No.09/2023 – Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. _____________ Page No. 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is giving up the prayer for challenge to Notification No.09/2023 – Central Tax dated 31.03.2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued with notices in Form - ASMT 10, DRC 01A and DRC 01 followed by personal hearing notices as detailed below:- Sl. No Date Description 1. 25.12.2023 Notice in Form DRC 01 with personal hearing [RFN No.ZD331223194059F] 2. 30.01.2024 2nd Personal Hearing / Reminder - 1 issued [RFN No.ZD330124149069K] 3. 07.02.2024 3rd Personal Hearing / Reminder – 2 [RFN No.ZD330224037926F]
It is informed that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order that came to be passed as notices that preceded the impugned order were hosted in the GST Common Portal and the petitioner being the Proprietary Concern was unaware of the same. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to explain the discrepancies between the turnover reported in Form – GSTR 2A and the taxable turnover declared by the petitioner in _____________ Page No. 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Form – GSTR 3B. It is submitted that a part of the turnover in Form – GSTR 2A pertains to acquisition of certain items for setting up the Super Market and therefore, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to explain the same.
That apart, it is submitted that not the entire turnover in Form – GSTR 2A pertains to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the sales turnover during 2018-2019 was Rs.1,78,32,788/- out of which the tax was payable only for Rs.1,34,37,477/- and the balance turnover was not taxable and hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to explain the discrepancies.
The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 4 on the other hand would submit that the Writ Petition is without merits and liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of Appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 4, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition by _____________ Page No. 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis remitting the case back to the fourth respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order which stands quashed in this order shall be treated as Addendum to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Subject to the petitioner complying with the above requirement within a period of 30 days, the fourth respondent shall proceed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. It is expected that fresh orders shall be passed within a period of three months from today.
In fine, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes/ No 22.07.2024 Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order smn2 To 1.The Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi – 110 001. _____________ Page No. 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Finance Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 4.The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST), Melur Assessment Circle, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Commercial Taxes Building, 5th Floor, Madurai - 625 020. _____________ Page No. 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN
, J.
smn2
2024 _____________ Page No. 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.